Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Smoking Gun)   Geeky musician who lured underage fans to send him porn pictures predicted in an online chat with one of his victims his exact sentence, which was handed down today: "that's like 5 years in federal prison and sex offender registration"   (thesmokinggun.com) divider line 116
    More: Dumbass, sex offender registration, convicts, Berklee College of Music, online chats, underage  
•       •       •

11912 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Feb 2014 at 2:29 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



116 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-28 03:08:47 PM  
The headline's sentencing makes me sad.
 
2014-02-28 03:10:43 PM  

RoxtarRyan: MelGoesOnTour: Pocket Ninja: I didn't know who this was, either, so I looked up some of his music and it is so awful that I feel others should have to bear some of the weight of my suffering.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENZdTTXrdQ8
That's some weight I"m sharing with you, pard'ner.
/can't figure why gals are drawn to him unless they are, perhaps, ugly


Certain types of females often seek the attention of skinny, weak-muscled effeminate males, since they are less threatening. Even by his own submission, out of the "literally hundreds of opportunities, while touring, to 'hook up,'" it was only  "with a college student on one occasion."

Simpsons did it!

thenostalgiablog90s.files.wordpress.com

 
2014-02-28 03:17:11 PM  

DeathByGeekSquad: ex-theater kids who work at high schools seemingly have a high percentage of predators in their ranks


May I ask what you're basing that statement on?
 
2014-02-28 03:22:23 PM  

Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?


Not as much as Nugent got for the 13 year olds.
 
2014-02-28 03:22:23 PM  
A very special episode of Glee?
 
2014-02-28 03:25:40 PM  
5 years is stupid long for this.  It's not like he was some 60 year old with 5 gigs of 9 year old boy and girls getting abused
 
2014-02-28 03:29:20 PM  

Pocket Ninja: I didn't know who this was, either, so I looked up some of his music and it is so awful that I feel others should have to bear some of the weight of my suffering.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENZdTTXrdQ8


At least we won't miss him while he's in prison.
 
2014-02-28 03:30:00 PM  

Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?


IIRC Rob nailed a 16 yo that he met at a bar so she lied about her age.
 
2014-02-28 03:31:05 PM  

Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?


zero.

But to be fair, the girl he nailed really did look older (think Charlotte Church completely cleaned up).
 
2014-02-28 03:31:54 PM  

relaxitsjustme: 5 years is stupid long for this.  It's not like he was some 60 year old with 5 gigs of 9 year old boy and girls getting abused


Maybe the judge heard his music.
 
2014-02-28 03:32:12 PM  

Tom_Slick: Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?

Pictures, is why.  Even if 16 is the age of consent where he lives, pictures are still illegal.


This shiat is farked in this day and age. Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex. Everything else is what it is. A 17y 364day old sends me an unsolicited nude selfy and that can be used to incarcerate me? Dafuq. Unless it's solicited pre-pubescent or involves exploiting a power dynamic (yeah, that can be hard to define), then anything goes. Everybody has a camera on a phone that can instantly send a pic to anyone anywhere. And once the hormones kick in, ain't no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. It just is. Maybe not good, but it just is.

Oh, and it's not like I'm benefitting from this in any way. No 16yo are sending my middle aged ass nudie pics. I'm just reflecting on the fact once horny happens, things follow. A guy/girl taking a nude selfie at 15/16 just should not be charged w child porn, nor should a recipient. It's just tough shiat now.
 
2014-02-28 03:33:14 PM  

Buck Henderson: keithgabryelski: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Allgier

it's a long slide downward...

[www.thepeoplesvoice.org image 187x259]
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 363x486]
[archive.sltrib.com image 500x478]
[7.blog.xuite.net image 266x344]
[blogs.kansascity.com image 360x287]

I that Tobias in the 2nd Pic?


He sure looks like an AnalRapist.
 
2014-02-28 03:33:31 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Tom_Slick: Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?

Pictures, is why.  Even if 16 is the age of consent where he lives, pictures are still illegal.

This shiat is farked in this day and age. Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex. Everything else is what it is. A 17y 364day old sends me an unsolicited nude selfy and that can be used to incarcerate me? Dafuq. Unless it's solicited pre-pubescent or involves exploiting a power dynamic (yeah, that can be hard to define), then anything goes. Everybody has a camera on a phone that can instantly send a pic to anyone anywhere. And once the hormones kick in, ain't no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. It just is. Maybe not good, but it just is.

Oh, and it's not like I'm benefitting from this in any way. No 16yo are sending my middle aged ass nudie pics. I'm just reflecting on the fact once horny happens, things follow. A guy/girl taking a nude selfie at 15/16 just should not be charged w child porn, nor should a recipient. It's just tough shiat now.


Oh, but yeah, the guy does deserve repeated cock punching a for offenses against art.

So there's that.
 
2014-02-28 03:35:21 PM  

Bane of Broone: Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?

IIRC Rob nailed a 16 yo that he met at a bar so she lied about her age.


Almost.  He met her first at a DNC (1988 Atlanta) photoshoot where she was working as a hair stylist, then picked her up at a party later that night.  A friend of mine was working with her and she thought she was about 20.

The tape still exists out there somewhere.
 
2014-02-28 03:37:50 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex.


Just out of curiosity, what age would you define as pre-pubescent?
 
2014-02-28 03:40:17 PM  

mcreadyblue: Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?

Not as much as Nugent got for the 13 year olds.


But there were 13 of them!
 
2014-02-28 03:40:33 PM  

bow: One of my favorite professors in college was a Dr. Michael Lombardo. That's unfortunate.


mimg.ugo.com
 
2014-02-28 03:40:48 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Tom_Slick: Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?

Pictures, is why.  Even if 16 is the age of consent where he lives, pictures are still illegal.

This shiat is farked in this day and age. Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex. Everything else is what it is. A 17y 364day old sends me an unsolicited nude selfy and that can be used to incarcerate me? Dafuq. Unless it's solicited pre-pubescent or involves exploiting a power dynamic (yeah, that can be hard to define), then anything goes. Everybody has a camera on a phone that can instantly send a pic to anyone anywhere. And once the hormones kick in, ain't no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. It just is. Maybe not good, but it just is.

Oh, and it's not like I'm benefitting from this in any way. No 16yo are sending my middle aged ass nudie pics. I'm just reflecting on the fact once horny happens, things follow. A guy/girl taking a nude selfie at 15/16 just should not be charged w child porn, nor should a recipient. It's just tough shiat now.


Given that photos nowadays can be easily distributed, and the impact to the photos subject can be huge, don't you think there should be penalties for an indivdually who deliberately and knowingly solicits compromising phots from underage girls?

You mentioned that power dynamic is one reason for penalties, and acknowledge that this is difficult to define.  The law has done a pretty succinct job of it, accurately deciding that in most cases, a power dynamic between  someone <16 and >25 is going to be inherently skewed.

I have a little bit more problem when you are talking about two kids in the same school (think freshman to senior romances).  I don't think the power dynamic is as skewed there.
 
2014-02-28 03:42:25 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex.

Just out of curiosity, what age would you define as pre-pubescent?


There is no age. Is a biologically proveable objective definitive state of sexual development.
 
2014-02-28 03:42:52 PM  
www.ratemymotivational.com
 
2014-02-28 03:45:47 PM  

Tom_Slick: Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?

Pictures, is why.  Even if 16 is the age of consent where he lives, pictures are still illegal.


Yup.  The federal age of consent is 16.  He could have farked her brains out in various states or any federal lands and been A-OK, but taking pictures is verboten.
 
2014-02-28 03:46:23 PM  

Por que tan serioso: Buck Henderson: keithgabryelski: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Allgier

it's a long slide downward...

[www.thepeoplesvoice.org image 187x259]
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 363x486]
[archive.sltrib.com image 500x478]
[7.blog.xuite.net image 266x344]
[blogs.kansascity.com image 360x287]

I that Tobias in the 2nd Pic?

He sure looks like an AnalRapist.


look up his story (his sister was interviewed a few years ago about his first troubles with the law).
Anal rape was certainly a part of it -- but the IST is the wrong suffix.
 
2014-02-28 03:49:15 PM  

MycroftHolmes: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Tom_Slick: Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?

Pictures, is why.  Even if 16 is the age of consent where he lives, pictures are still illegal.

This shiat is farked in this day and age. Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex. Everything else is what it is. A 17y 364day old sends me an unsolicited nude selfy and that can be used to incarcerate me? Dafuq. Unless it's solicited pre-pubescent or involves exploiting a power dynamic (yeah, that can be hard to define), then anything goes. Everybody has a camera on a phone that can instantly send a pic to anyone anywhere. And once the hormones kick in, ain't no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. It just is. Maybe not good, but it just is.

Oh, and it's not like I'm benefitting from this in any way. No 16yo are sending my middle aged ass nudie pics. I'm just reflecting on the fact once horny happens, things follow. A guy/girl taking a nude selfie at 15/16 just should not be charged w child porn, nor should a recipient. It's just tough shiat now.

Given that photos nowadays can be easily distributed, and the impact to the photos subject can be huge, don't you think there should be penalties for an indivdually who deliberately and knowingly solicits compromising phots from underage girls?

You mentioned that power dynamic is one reason for penalties, and acknowledge that this is difficult to define.  The law has done a pretty succinct job of it, accurately deciding that in most cases, a power dynamic between  someone <16 and >25 is going to be inherently skewed.

I have a little bit more problem when you are talking about two kids in the same school (think freshman to senior romances).  I don't think the power dynamic is as skewed there.


Well, 1) I'm disputing 'underage' as anything past puberty. 2) that 16 yo, solicited or not, sending the pic is also guilty of distributing "child porn". 3) as you point out 'power dynamic' as an arbitrary age is...arbitrary. I'm thinking more counselor/teacher/scout leader/priest etc.
 
2014-02-28 03:54:08 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex.

Just out of curiosity, what age would you define as pre-pubescent?

There is no age. Is a biologically proveable objective definitive state of sexual development.


That seems easy to legally enforce.
 
2014-02-28 03:54:29 PM  
Just watched a few seconds of one of his videos. This guy was into girls?
 
2014-02-28 04:01:53 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Well, 1) I'm disputing 'underage' as anything past puberty. 2) that 16 yo, solicited or not, sending the pic is also guilty of distributing "child porn". 3) as you point out 'power dynamic' as an arbitrary age is...arbitrary. I'm thinking more counselor/teacher/scout leader/priest etc.


There are two different threshholds.  Puberty is the threshhold of sexual maturity, so his actions shouldn't necessarily be lumped in with the actions of a pedophile.  But the second threshhold is the age at which we, as a society, determine that someone has the maturity to provide informed consent.  Yes, it is arbitrary.  There are 20 years olds with less emotional maturity than 13 year olds.  But it is a valid protection to guard against predators.  A 40 year old man trolling for post pubescent 14 year olds is certainly a predator.

I do not agree with the idea that once a person had hit puberty, they are no longer considered underage.  That might work in some cultures, but it would be certainly disasterous in the US.  I agree that this guy got lumped in under child porn laws, and that the punishment may not fit the crime.  But I do agree with the law that there was a crime here.
 
2014-02-28 04:06:22 PM  
It wasn't Onision? Damn.
 
2014-02-28 04:06:25 PM  

MycroftHolmes: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Tom_Slick: Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?

Pictures, is why.  Even if 16 is the age of consent where he lives, pictures are still illegal.

This shiat is farked in this day and age. Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex. Everything else is what it is. A 17y 364day old sends me an unsolicited nude selfy and that can be used to incarcerate me? Dafuq. Unless it's solicited pre-pubescent or involves exploiting a power dynamic (yeah, that can be hard to define), then anything goes. Everybody has a camera on a phone that can instantly send a pic to anyone anywhere. And once the hormones kick in, ain't no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. It just is. Maybe not good, but it just is.

Oh, and it's not like I'm benefitting from this in any way. No 16yo are sending my middle aged ass nudie pics. I'm just reflecting on the fact once horny happens, things follow. A guy/girl taking a nude selfie at 15/16 just should not be charged w child porn, nor should a recipient. It's just tough shiat now.

Given that photos nowadays can be easily distributed, and the impact to the photos subject can be huge, don't you think there should be penalties for an indivdually who deliberately and knowingly solicits compromising phots from underage girls?

You mentioned that power dynamic is one reason for penalties, and acknowledge that this is difficult to define.  The law has done a pretty succinct job of it, accurately deciding that in most cases, a power dynamic between  someone <16 and >25 is going to be inherently skewed.

I have a little bit more problem when you are talking about two kids in the same school (think freshman to senior romances).  I don't think the power dynamic is as skewed there.


"Given that photos nowadays can be easily distributed, and the impact to the photos subject can be huge, don't you think there should be penalties for an indivdually who deliberately and knowingly solicits compromising phots from underage girls?"

Also, sadly, the above quote is just reaffirmation of the 'tough shiat' factor. Things have changed and they ain't unchanging. Maybe laws about exploiting images (for malice or financial gain, ie posting willfully to public sites, that's reasonable IMHO), but just the act of consensual sending of a nude selfy by a horny teen, to whomever , is just not gonna stop. And I'm assuming attitudes, like in the past, are gonna just have to adapt. It's no longer a scandal for s woman to be at a bar, or wear a bikini at the beach, or interracial couples to kiss in public, or gays to hold hands. Etc. it's stuff that's gone on forever (Romeo & Juliet farking at 14?) they'd prob have exchanged selfies too. It's just getting over stigmas attached to pervasive behavior that has been stigmatized. If it's consensual , post pubescent, and not being commercially exploited. Well, welcome to reality b
 
2014-02-28 04:13:01 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: MycroftHolmes: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Tom_Slick: Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?

Pictures, is why.  Even if 16 is the age of consent where he lives, pictures are still illegal.

This shiat is farked in this day and age. Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex. Everything else is what it is. A 17y 364day old sends me an unsolicited nude selfy and that can be used to incarcerate me? Dafuq. Unless it's solicited pre-pubescent or involves exploiting a power dynamic (yeah, that can be hard to define), then anything goes. Everybody has a camera on a phone that can instantly send a pic to anyone anywhere. And once the hormones kick in, ain't no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. It just is. Maybe not good, but it just is.

Oh, and it's not like I'm benefitting from this in any way. No 16yo are sending my middle aged ass nudie pics. I'm just reflecting on the fact once horny happens, things follow. A guy/girl taking a nude selfie at 15/16 just should not be charged w child porn, nor should a recipient. It's just tough shiat now.

Given that photos nowadays can be easily distributed, and the impact to the photos subject can be huge, don't you think there should be penalties for an indivdually who deliberately and knowingly solicits compromising phots from underage girls?

You mentioned that power dynamic is one reason for penalties, and acknowledge that this is difficult to define.  The law has done a pretty succinct job of it, accurately deciding that in most cases, a power dynamic between  someone <16 and >25 is going to be inherently skewed.

I have a little bit more problem when you are talking about two kids in the same school (think freshman to senior romances).  I don't think the power dynamic is as skewed there.

Well, 1) I'm disputing 'underage' as anything past puberty. 2) that 16 yo, solicited or not, sending the pic is also guilty of distributing "child porn". 3) as you point out 'power dynamic' as an arbitrary age is...arbitrary. I'm thinking more counselor/teacher/scout leader/priest etc.


I'm not foolish enough to get into most of this thread, but let me say this:

I hit puberty/got my period shortly after turning 11.

/carry on
 
2014-02-28 04:15:46 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex.

Just out of curiosity, what age would you define as pre-pubescent?

There is no age. Is a biologically proveable objective definitive state of sexual development.

That seems easy to legally enforce.


You are aware that in the scheme of things, biological maturity is a hella easier standard to determine than a shiat ton of other legal concepts. Who is a reasonable person, under any variety of circumstances, what amounts to negligence, or gross negligence , reckless indifference , premeditation, malice a forethought , reasonable suspicion, but for standards, beyond a reasonable doubt , exigent circumstances. In the scheme of legal standards, determining puberty is pretty farking easy.
 
2014-02-28 04:19:34 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex.

Just out of curiosity, what age would you define as pre-pubescent?

There is no age. Is a biologically proveable objective definitive state of sexual development.

That seems easy to legally enforce.

You are aware that in the scheme of things, biological maturity is a hella easier standard to determine than a shiat ton of other legal concepts... In the scheme of legal standards, determining puberty is pretty farking easy.


Not as easy as age. Not by a long shot. That's why it's used. That's what makes it a sensible rule.
 
2014-02-28 04:20:18 PM  

Pocket Ninja: I didn't know who this was, either, so I looked up some of his music and it is so awful that I feel others should have to bear some of the weight of my suffering.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENZdTTXrdQ8


He's CIT good. I do pity him, Where he's going, the other campers are gonna be worse than brats, and the food's gonna be hideous. If he's lucky, he'll get to smoke and drink. If he's really unlucky, he'll get to fool around with some inmate who's nookie-bound.
 
2014-02-28 04:23:54 PM  

lindalouwho: Serious Post on Serious Thread: MycroftHolmes: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Tom_Slick: Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?

Pictures, is why.  Even if 16 is the age of consent where he lives, pictures are still illegal.

This shiat is farked in this day and age. Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex. Everything else is what it is. A 17y 364day old sends me an unsolicited nude selfy and that can be used to incarcerate me? Dafuq. Unless it's solicited pre-pubescent or involves exploiting a power dynamic (yeah, that can be hard to define), then anything goes. Everybody has a camera on a phone that can instantly send a pic to anyone anywhere. And once the hormones kick in, ain't no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. It just is. Maybe not good, but it just is.

Oh, and it's not like I'm benefitting from this in any way. No 16yo are sending my middle aged ass nudie pics. I'm just reflecting on the fact once horny happens, things follow. A guy/girl taking a nude selfie at 15/16 just should not be charged w child porn, nor should a recipient. It's just tough shiat now.

Given that photos nowadays can be easily distributed, and the impact to the photos subject can be huge, don't you think there should be penalties for an indivdually who deliberately and knowingly solicits compromising phots from underage girls?

You mentioned that power dynamic is one reason for penalties, and acknowledge that this is difficult to define.  The law has done a pretty succinct job of it, accurately deciding that in most cases, a power dynamic between  someone <16 and >25 is going to be inherently skewed.

I have a little bit more problem when you are talking about two kids in the same school (think freshman to senior romances).  I don't think the power dynamic is as skewed there.

Well, 1) I'm disputing 'underage' as anything past puberty. 2) that 16 yo, solicited or not, sending the pic is also guilty of distributing "child porn". 3) as you point out 'power dynamic' as an arbitrary age is...arbitrary. I'm thinking more counselor/teacher/scout leader/priest etc.

I'm not foolish enough to get into most of this thread, but let me say this:

I hit puberty/got my period shortly after turning 11.

/carry on


Yup, biology and legal standards are a tough row to hoe. It's all lines in the sand. No line is going to be fair or right for every circumstance. But as the law stands now, it's a hard line absent jury nullification. I was barely 13 when I became sexually active. If I had a cell cam & sent a nudy pic, you think I should've gone to jail and be permanently labeled a sex offender?
 
2014-02-28 04:26:47 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex.

Just out of curiosity, what age would you define as pre-pubescent?

There is no age. Is a biologically proveable objective definitive state of sexual development.

That seems easy to legally enforce.

You are aware that in the scheme of things, biological maturity is a hella easier standard to determine than a shiat ton of other legal concepts... In the scheme of legal standards, determining puberty is pretty farking easy.

Not as easy as age. Not by a long shot. That's why it's used. That's what makes it a sensible rule.


I'm not comfy trading justice for convenience. But that's just me.
 
2014-02-28 04:28:28 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: But as the law stands now, it's a hard line absent jury nullification. I was barely 13 when I became sexually active. If I had a cell cam & sent a nudy pic, you think I should've gone to jail and be permanently labeled a sex offender?


Merits aside, lightening up child-porn laws is about as politically likely as legalizing meth, opening the borders, or single-payer healthcare.

AFAIK, teenage sexters don't get prosecuted anymore for creating and distributing child pornography of themselves (that was insane), but it's still illegal. Prosecutors are just declining to pursue the charges.
 
2014-02-28 04:32:49 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex.

Just out of curiosity, what age would you define as pre-pubescent?

There is no age. Is a biologically proveable objective definitive state of sexual development.

That seems easy to legally enforce.

You are aware that in the scheme of things, biological maturity is a hella easier standard to determine than a shiat ton of other legal concepts... In the scheme of legal standards, determining puberty is pretty farking easy.

Not as easy as age. Not by a long shot. That's why it's used. That's what makes it a sensible rule.

I'm not comfy trading justice for convenience. But that's just me.


So your solution, in the name of justice, is to have the age in which it is legal to participate in certain activities change on a person to person basis. And that basis is out of the control of each person. And there is no way to prove when that threshold has been reached without performing a biological exam on each person?

That sounds way more comfortable to me..
 
2014-02-28 04:40:02 PM  
Well, I object to 'lightening up' as opposed to 'rationally engaging reality'. That aside, women's suffrage, and title VII were pretty unlikely, until they weren't. And I sure as fark don't want to hang the fate of a horny teen on the whims of a local prosecutor.

At the very least, there shouldn't be strict liability. At least have a trial possible that doesn't revolve around static arbitrary ages & actions.
 
2014-02-28 04:40:22 PM  
Everyone keeps saying 5 years in PMITA, but TFA clearly says 5 years probation and register as a sex offender. He will do no more time than he already has.
 
2014-02-28 04:45:34 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex.

Just out of curiosity, what age would you define as pre-pubescent?

There is no age. Is a biologically proveable objective definitive state of sexual development.

That seems easy to legally enforce.

You are aware that in the scheme of things, biological maturity is a hella easier standard to determine than a shiat ton of other legal concepts... In the scheme of legal standards, determining puberty is pretty farking easy.

Not as easy as age. Not by a long shot. That's why it's used. That's what makes it a sensible rule.

I'm not comfy trading justice for convenience. But that's just me.

So your solution, in the name of justice, is to have the age in which it is legal to participate in certain activities change on a person to person basis. And that basis is out of the control of each person. And there is no way to prove when that threshold has been reached without performing a biological exam on each person?

That sounds way more comfortable to me..


Everything from tort injury to rape cases turn on 'biological exams'.

And what ''basis" is out of whose control? Reasonableness is pretty standard for lots of legal concepts. You want arbitrary easy standards for difficult complicated issues. I don't.
 
2014-02-28 04:57:36 PM  

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex.

Just out of curiosity, what age would you define as pre-pubescent?

There is no age. Is a biologically proveable objective definitive state of sexual development.

That seems easy to legally enforce.

You are aware that in the scheme of things, biological maturity is a hella easier standard to determine than a shiat ton of other legal concepts... In the scheme of legal standards, determining puberty is pretty farking easy.

Not as easy as age. Not by a long shot. That's why it's used. That's what makes it a sensible rule.

I'm not comfy trading justice for convenience. But that's just me.

So your solution, in the name of justice, is to have the age in which it is legal to participate in certain activities change on a person to person basis. And that basis is out of the control of each person. And there is no way to prove when that threshold has been reached without performing a biological exam on each person?

That sounds way more comfortable to me..

Everything from tort injury to rape cases turn on 'biological exams'.

And what ''basis" is out of whose control? Reasonableness is pretty standard for lots of legal concepts. You want arbitrary easy standards for difficult complicated issues. I don't.


Considering how many rape victims are adverse to such exams, I'd like to limit the number of those necessary.

Maybe I didn't try hard enough, but I had no control over when I hit puberty.

You're going to have to draw a line somewhere. How do you determine when puberty has properly progressed to the point where a person is allowed to have sex with an older person? Is it the same for everyone? How will the other party know this has occurred to the sufficient level to meet legal guidelines? There are a lot of problems with your sensible solution.
 
2014-02-28 05:07:52 PM  

Car_Ramrod: How do you determine when puberty has properly progressed to the point where a person is allowed to have sex with an older person?


If there's grass on the field play ball.
 
2014-02-28 05:10:46 PM  
I have to admit, I am pretty on the fence about this. It isn't like this guy was luring kids Chris Hanson style to hook up with. It sounds like he was lurking chat rooms and girls were all-too-eager to send naked pics and engage in "cyber sex" with him. So what? When you engage in "cyber-sex" no one really knows who the other person is, how old they are etc. and it doesn't really matter, it is fantasizing. With cameras involved, the same holds true, there is no way of knowing the true age of the person across the way. Admittedly knowing and continuing down that path is pretty skeevy and there is a definite line of "totally not cool" and "socially unacceptable." With regards to legality and punishment, that becomes pretty hazy. This doesn't sound like an offense that should result in jail but rather humiliation.
 
2014-02-28 05:15:02 PM  

Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?


The thing I always thought was weird is that in many states, 16 is legal to have sex with, within certain limits on the other participant's age. Take a picture though and that's child pornography and a prison sentence. How does that even make sense? Why is it ok to fark a girl but a felony to take a consensual picture? IMO there is a very substantial difference between a teenager sending dirty pics of themselves and a creepy old man taking dirty pictures of a toddler but from a legal standpoint it's the same thing.
 
2014-02-28 05:18:25 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex.

Just out of curiosity, what age would you define as pre-pubescent?

There is no age. Is a biologically proveable objective definitive state of sexual development.

That seems easy to legally enforce.

You are aware that in the scheme of things, biological maturity is a hella easier standard to determine than a shiat ton of other legal concepts... In the scheme of legal standards, determining puberty is pretty farking easy.

Not as easy as age. Not by a long shot. That's why it's used. That's what makes it a sensible rule.

I'm not comfy trading justice for convenience. But that's just me.

So your solution, in the name of justice, is to have the age in which it is legal to participate in certain activities change on a person to person basis. And that basis is out of the control of each person. And there is no way to prove when that threshold has been reached without performing a biological exam on each person?

That sounds way more comfortable to me..

Everything from tort injury to rape cases turn on 'biological exams'.

And what ''basis" is out of whose control? Reasonableness is pretty standard for lots of legal concepts. You want arbitrary easy standards for difficult complicated issues. I don't.

Considering how many rape victims are adverse to such exams, I'd like to limit the number of those necessary.

Maybe I didn't try hard enough, but I had no control over when I hit puberty.

You're going to have to draw a line somewhere. How do you determine when puberty has properly progressed to the point where a person is allowed to have sex with an older person? Is it the same for everyone? How will the other party know this has occurred to the sufficient level to meet legal guidelines? There are a lot of problems with your sensible solution.


Yup, it's a right big farking mess. That's why I've actually back peddled some after reading some responses. I'd still loosen up some things (no strict liability starting 14-15), and reasonableness standard (bench or jury trial) in either very large disparate ages, inherent power/coercive situations, or particularly young actors. But charges against someone taking there own picture, and absent abusive or commercial posting, I think the current regime and prosecutorial arbitrary discretion is not serving justice.
 
2014-02-28 05:19:28 PM  
This does seem a rather pointless prosecution.

If a 16 year old with whom it is is legal to have a sexual relationship engages with someone online they are less at risk than in the real world. As long as the pictures stay private it is safe behaviour. It allows for the person to develop their sexuality, with in this case an idealised partner. If there is no harm I seen no point in the pursuing him other than to say stop.

His behaviour does not look predatory. I would say he is probably a late developer so the actual age difference is not relevant in his case. The law needs to be less deterministic and more humane.
 
2014-02-28 05:19:41 PM  
There's a reason, it's called "jailbait"

JAIL
BAIT

Meaning don't let your hormones direct you to have ANY sexual contact an underaged cutie...you WILL go to jail.

This INCLUDES through communications.
AND keeping media of them.

BTW, females...this includes you too.

/PSA
 
2014-02-28 05:20:47 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex.

Just out of curiosity, what age would you define as pre-pubescent?


Age? I define it as pre-pubescent, there are pretty clear medical guidelines on the matter. Thats te point, an age based hard cutoff doesnt really make sense since everyone develops mentally and physically a little different. Yes there is some gray area as puberty doesn't happen instantly. Those situations need to be handled on a case by case basis.
 
2014-02-28 05:23:38 PM  

MycroftHolmes: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Tom_Slick: Pumpernickel bread: If the youngest was 16, this sentence seems kind of harsh. Didn't rob Lowe go so far as to nail a 16 yo? How much time did he do?

Pictures, is why.  Even if 16 is the age of consent where he lives, pictures are still illegal.

This shiat is farked in this day and age. Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex. Everything else is what it is. A 17y 364day old sends me an unsolicited nude selfy and that can be used to incarcerate me? Dafuq. Unless it's solicited pre-pubescent or involves exploiting a power dynamic (yeah, that can be hard to define), then anything goes. Everybody has a camera on a phone that can instantly send a pic to anyone anywhere. And once the hormones kick in, ain't no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. It just is. Maybe not good, but it just is.

Oh, and it's not like I'm benefitting from this in any way. No 16yo are sending my middle aged ass nudie pics. I'm just reflecting on the fact once horny happens, things follow. A guy/girl taking a nude selfie at 15/16 just should not be charged w child porn, nor should a recipient. It's just tough shiat now.

Given that photos nowadays can be easily distributed, and the impact to the photos subject can be huge, don't you think there should be penalties for an indivdually who deliberately and knowingly solicits compromising phots from underage girls?

You mentioned that power dynamic is one reason for penalties, and acknowledge that this is difficult to define.  The law has done a pretty succinct job of it, accurately deciding that in most cases, a power dynamic between  someone <16 and >25 is going to be inherently skewed.

I have a little bit more problem when you are talking about two kids in the same school (think freshman to senior romances).  I don't think the power dynamic is as skewed there.


Penalties yes, but years in prison and lifelong sex offender status? That depends on a lot of factors. The biggest problem with the whole sex offender thing is that it casts too wide a net and lumps together people who are real creeps with people who did something dumb.
 
2014-02-28 05:28:35 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Car_Ramrod: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Only sensible rule as I'm concerned is hard time for soliciting pre-pubescent pics/sex.

Just out of curiosity, what age would you define as pre-pubescent?

There is no age. Is a biologically proveable objective definitive state of sexual development.

That seems easy to legally enforce.

You are aware that in the scheme of things, biological maturity is a hella easier standard to determine than a shiat ton of other legal concepts... In the scheme of legal standards, determining puberty is pretty farking easy.

Not as easy as age. Not by a long shot. That's why it's used. That's what makes it a sensible rule.


Easy doe not always equal sensible.

Zero tolerance rules exist because they are easy. Zero tolerance is rarely sensible.
 
2014-02-28 05:33:23 PM  

James10952001: Pictures, is why. Even if 16 is the age of consent where he lives, pictures are still illegal.


Before 2003 The Sun could and did publish pictures of 16 and 17 years olds topless. How did we get from banning the commercial publishing of these pictures to turning the private exchange of pictures into a 5 year sentence?
 
Displayed 50 of 116 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report